Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5709
[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
(Division Bench) WA No.702/2021
(ANKIT PATEL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence :
Mr. Ashish Rawat, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Aashish Anand Barnard, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Law laid down:
Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order passed by the writ court dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking benefit of discount/exemption to the extent of 90% on the motor vehicle tax penalty in terms of Notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of M.P. under Section 21(1) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991 – Held – The union of the words “terms” and “conditions” clearly denotes plural and not a singular. Moreover, all the four conditions have been enumerated one after another and have not been disjuncted by use of the word “or”. Not only, therefore, as per the sub-clause (1) of Clause 1 vehicle should have completed 20 years from the date of manufacture and still registered in the Transport Department but the sub-clause (2) also has to be satisfied. Admittedly, the vehicle of the petitioner does not fulfill the very first condition of having completed 20 years from the date of manufacture and therefore, merely because it is still registered in the Transport Department that by itself will not bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of first clause of the exemption notification. There is, therefore, no need to apply the test contained in the subsequent three sub-clauses namely the sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4). The petitioner is therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Clause 1 of the Notification. Since vehicle of the petitioner is 9 years old, his case will fall in Clause 2(1)2, his vehicle being more than 5 years old but not more than 10 years old registered from the date of notification and thus, disentitling him to the discount of only 40%.
It is trite that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted in fiscal statute and the important principle of interpretation interpreting them is that in construing an exemption notification, the question of equity does not arise and the exemption provision has to be strictly construed. Any exemption
[2]
notification or any clause of any notification of exemption in regard to taxation has to be strictly construed.
The interpretation of the exemption notification is required to be made in the light of the words used therein and not by any other method. Nothing can be added or subtracted from what has been stated in the notification granting exemption and that such notifications are required to be strictly construed. When the language is simple, clear and unambiguous, the words used in the notification granting exemption have to be given their natural meaning.
While exemptions should generally be interpreted strictly and in case of ambiguity it has to be interpreted in favour of the revenue but the expressions regarding beneficiary exemptions have to be interpreted differently, keeping in view the purpose of encouragement of industrial activities, encouraging capital investment, promoting development of industry and trade etc., which exemption provisions may be interpreted liberally.
Reference made:
(1) Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, (2004) 7 SCC 377.
(2) Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others, (2011) 1 SCC 236.
(3) Hansraj Gordhandas vs. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and others, AIR 1970 SC 755.
(4) Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another, (2005) 7 SCC 190.
(5) State of Gujarat and others vs. Essar Oil Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 522.
(6) Union of India and others vs. Wood Papers Limited and another,
(1990) 4 SCC 256.
(7) Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Yokogawa India Limited, (2017) 2 SCC Page 1.
(8) Commissioner of Central Excise Surat-I vs. Favourite Industries,
(2012) 7 SCC 153.
(9) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and others.
(10) Government of Kerala and another vs. mother Superior Adoration Convent, 2021 SCC Online SC 151.
(11) Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. M. Ambalal & Co., (2011)
2 SCC 74.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Significant paragraphs: 6, 9 to 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heard through Video Conferencing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3]
Ashish Rawat,Advocate General
O R D E R (Oral)
(05.08.2021)
Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice:
1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2565/2020 dated 22.03.2021 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The appellant in the writ petition challenged the order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-4) wherein the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Chhindwara while granting discount of 40% i.e. Rs.3,78,960/- out of the total demand of Rs.9,47,400/- on the payable amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty in respect of the vehicle No. MP-28-P-0269 registered in the name of the petitioner had raised a demand of Rs.5,68,440/-, calling upon the petitioner to pay the same up to the month of October, 2019.
3. Mr. Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Transport Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 21(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991, the respondents were required to give discount/exemption to the extent of 90% on the payable amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty if any one of the four conditions enumerated therein was attracted. Learned counsel argued that all the four conditions are namely; (1) Vehicles which have completed 20 years from the date of manufacture and are still registered in the Transport Department; (2) Vehicles on which the motor vehicle tax and penalty or both are pending and the vehicle owner voluntarily wants to cancel the registration of the
[4]
vehicle; (3) Such vehicles for which Permit, Fitness Certificate and Insurance have not been taken and no case has been registered on the vehicle for any crime within last five years from the date of issue of this notification; (4) The time limit for payment of discounted motor vehicle tax and penalty shall be 31st March, 2020 from the date of issue of notification. Merely because the vehicle of the appellant was 9 years old, the discount only to the extent of 40% as per Clause 2 of the aforesaid exemption notification cannot be justified. It is submitted that Clause 1 of the above notification is independent of Clause 2 and each of the four clauses enumerated therein shall have to be read dis-jointly and not together. According to the petitioner, as per Clause 1 of the exemption notification, entitlement of the petitioner to get discount is to the extent of 90% and, therefore, the petitioner has been wrongfully denied the discount to the extent of 50% on the amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition. It is submitted that entire exemption notification has to be read in entirety inasmuch as all the clauses of the exemption notification have to be read conjointly and one part cannot be read to the exclusion of another.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The exemption notification which is relevant for deciding the present writ appeal, reads as under:-
[5]
vehicles of all categories and age limit registered before the publication of this notification from the payment of dues of motor vehicle tax and penalty as under:- 1. Exemption of taxes on Astray Vehicles.- The vehicle of this category shall be given 90 percent discount on the payable amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty thereon, subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(1) Vehicles which have completed 20 years from the date of manufacture and are still registered in the Transport Department.
(2) Vehicles on which motor vehicle tax or penalty or both are pending and the vehicle owner voluntarily wants to cancel the r
